The attachment below is the "latest and the greatest" effort to document all coast redwoods over 350 feet. All trees on this list have been measured with either tripod mounted Impulse200LR by Chris Atkins or myself or direct tape drop by Dr. Stephen Sillett. All LiDAR trees from the Save the Redwoods League/Ken Fisher sponsored LiDAR fly-overs have been verified from the ground.

Some LiDAR trees that came up as being over 370ft on the LiDAR hit-list were in fact much shorter. They were leaning over a scarp or a ravine, which resulted in ground level over-estimation for the low side of ground level. The resolution of the LidAR returns was just not quite high enough to resolve this lower ground/trunk interface.

All trees on the LiDAR hit-list have been verified now.

There are now 222 coast redwoods confirmed taller than 350 feet !! (the original attachment had listed 223 trees but I soon realized one tree on list, "Dark Horse" was the same tree as "Polaris" so I removed the listing for Polaris and re-ranked the shorter trees to reflect the change)

There are no prime areas left to search for tall redwoods, exept for a few higher altitude creek basins of fragmented forests. The odds of finding a tree taller than Hyperion in one of these places would seem to be extremely low to zero. My search for 350ft and taller redwoods has concluded for now.

I will continue to monitor the height of the existing 350'+ redwoods and keep track of upper 340ft class redwoods. Dr. Sillett and Van Pelt I am sure will keep track of these "Super Trees" over the decades. Few, if any tall redwoods (those over 350ft) were missed by the LiDAR project. What was missed we got on ground based searches.

Diameters are taken at breast height (1.37 meters or 4.5 feet) above tree’s average ground level. Heights are determined by the vertical distance from the top of tree, living or dead, to the average ground level of tree. Height measurements were obtained with either climber deployed tapeline or tripod mounted Impulse 200 LR® laser range finder. Accuracy is (+,-) 2 inches (.025 meters) or better. Most trees discovered and/or with data provided by the following people: Dr. Stephen Sillett, Dr. Robert Van Pelt, Chris Atkins, Mario Vaden, Bill Kruse & Michael Taylor.

"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

PAwildernessadvocate wrote:Cool, thanks for this database. Is it posted elsewhere online? Makes you wonder wistfully how many 350' redwoods there may have been 200 to 300 years ago.

At the moment, this tallest redwoods list is posted only here on the ENTS BBS. Many of these trees are new discoveries. My website's tallest redwoods list is now obsolete and will be updated by the end of the month with this list. You've seen it first on ENTS.

This new list in includes all known 350'+ redwoods by Save the Redwoods League scientists Dr. Stephen Sillett and Dr. Robert Van Pelt and all my other tree colleagues who search for, climb and measure the tallest redwoods. One particular new redwood on the list is quite remarkable. "The Pole". Its dbh is 7ft but it stands over 350 ft tall !

I am inspired to list all tuliptrees over 180' as an eastern surrugate for your west coast "super trees" list. Or maybe all trees over 180' (this would be two species; e. white pine and tuliptree). Such a list would be relatively short and easy to manage. Now we just need to come up with names...

BTW, do you have an average range of error for the LiDAR hits versus the laser heights? That would be useful information to know.

George Foreman had like six kids name George, so I imagine a whole series of trees named Will Blozan.

"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

I am inspired to list all tuliptrees over 180' as an eastern surrugate for your west coast "super trees" list. Or maybe all trees over 180' (this would be two species; e. white pine and tuliptree). Such a list would be relatively short and easy to manage. Now we just need to come up with names...

BTW, do you have an average range of error for the LiDAR hits versus the laser heights? That would be useful information to know.

Will

Will,

In the flat areas like Humboldt Redwoods State Park the LiDAR was usually within 3 feet accuracy and tended to be on the conservative side. For steep hill areas the LIDAR often over-estimated by 20 feet more more due to the fact that redwoods tend to lean down-hill in notch canyons as they seek the open areas for more light. If the tree grows near a ravine this over-estimation from LiDAR was more the norm than the exception. Perhaps only 50% of the LiDAR hit list trees from Redwood National Park were actually trees over 350 feet. From Humboldt Redwoods State Park nearly 100% of the LiDAR returns that came back as being over 350 feet were actually trees over 350 feet when confirmed from the ground or climber deployed tape. It depends on the terrain and how well the ground/trunk interface was captured. For steep and dense canopies the ground determination is a great challenge.

Many many years ago, first in 1958, I visited the redwood country many times, and I may have visited the Humboldt Redwood State Park more often than the others. Way, way back, the tallest redwood was supposed to be a tree in the Founders Grove--I think it was called the Founders Tree, and initially was supposed to be 364 feet tall. Then the story was that a storm blew off a part of the top, and it was measured to be 346. Another report said that the initial measurement was recorded with transposed digits. Did you measure this one? And if so, what was the height? And was there evidence of a damaged top?

Another question: A bit out of the way, is a less often visited section of the park, which includes the Pepperwood Grove. In my memory--I was probably last there in 1970 or so--the trees there did not seem to rival those in other parts of the park. But, did you measure any there? Were there any in the 140 class?

Anyway, what an amazing piece of work you have done. I can only imagine the challenges involved in measuring these trees. Yes, the LiDAR helps you locate trees to measure, but that doesn't make the actual measurement any easier. I am stunned and amazed by what you, and others, have accomplished. Thanks!

My wife and I have not given up hope of getting out there to see these trees one last time, and your list only adds motivation. My love affair with redwoods started when I was 7 or 8 years old, and I saw the picture of two very graceful tall redwoods in G.H. Collingwoods book, Knowing Your Trees.